got VS git-branchless

I've not heard the term "probabilistic tree" and I've having difficulty pulling up references. I suspect it's implemented by subpackage ptree[0]. Do you have resources on what makes probabilistic trees different from hash tables?

[0] https://github.com/gotvc/got/tree/master/pkg/gotkv/ptree

FastCDC is the same chunking algorithm used in Got.

https://github.com/gotvc/got

Thanks for sharing RocketGit. This is the first time I've heard of it, and yes, it does look like a cool copyleft solution to self-hosted Git.

Another interesting option is Brendan Caroll's got[0], which allows sharing of repositories over INET256[1]. I'm sure there are other P2P approaches to Git, but this one just piqued my interest. Unfortunately it has a naming conflict with OpenBSD's Game of Trees[2].

[0] https://github.com/gotvc/got

[1] https://github.com/inet256/inet256

[2] https://gameoftrees.org/

I work on a project which solves a similar use case.

https://github.com/gotvc/got

Got also does E2EE encryption, but it can additionally encrypt branch names from remote servers.

I've been working on a project "Got". Which deals with the LFS problem, mentioned in the post.

https://github.com/gotvc/got

Got isn't really trying to do software version control better than Git. It's trying to make general purpose file versioning practical, with a workflow similar to Git's.

In the same space is the key-value store underlying Got: GotKV. https://github.com/gotvc/got/tree/master/pkg/gotkv

It stores encrypted blobs in any content-addressed store, and provides a copy-on-write key-value store API.

Yes, but due to its simplicity + extensibility + widespread adoption, I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re still using Git 100+ years from now.

The current trend (most popular and IMO likely to succeed) is to make tools (“layers”) which work on top of Git, like more intuitive UI/patterns (https://github.com/jesseduffield/lazygit, https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless) and smart merge resolvers (https://github.com/Symbolk/IntelliMerge, https://docs.plasticscm.com/semanticmerge/how-to-configure/s...). Git it so flexible, even things that it handles terribly by default, it handles

> Is this for a case where a bunch of people branch from master@HEAD (lets call this A), then you need to modify A, so you then need to rebase each branch that branched from A individually?

Mainly it's for when you branch from A multiple times, and then modify A. This can happen if you have some base work that you build multiple features on top of. I routinely do this as part of rapid prototyping, as described here: https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless/wiki/Workflow:-div...

`git undo` shows a list of operations it'll execute, which you have to confirm before accepting. Of course, it's ultimately a matter of trust in the tools you use.

What happens is you work somewhere that has stacked diffs and suddenly you learn how to shape your diffs to make them easy to review. Thinking of how folks will review your code in chunks while writing it makes it cleaner. Having small but easy to read diffs makes reviews faster and helps junior devs learn how to review.

Sometimes this doesn’t happen in which case you end up need to split your commit at the end. This is where git utterly fails. You end up needing git split and git absorb to make this productive.

Git split let’s you select which chunks in a commit should belong to it and then splits that into a commit and then you do it again and again until you have lots of commits. You’ll still need to probably test each one but the majority of the work is done

Git absorb takes changes on the top of your stack and magically finds which commit in your stack the each chunk should belong to and amends it to the right commit

You also need git branchless https://github.com/arxanas/git-branchless as it lets you move up and down the stack without needing to remember so much git arcana.